You're preaching culling the ill Soc. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it, I won't ever agree that forcing abortions is okay.
The rights of the Unborn still a "hot potato"!
- Thread starter dancing-loon
- Start date
You're preaching culling the ill Soc. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it, I won't ever agree that forcing abortions is okay.
I never said forcing or killing, I said that women who have no controll of their life's dungled with drugs or having aids should not be allowed to produce a damaged life. Very simple......
Jesus Christ the abortion debate is soooooo boring.
It goes like this, no woman should be forced to have a baby that is going to threaten their own life or is proven to be severely handicapped nor should she be forced to have the baby of a rapist. However I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control and both parties involved have to take responsiblilty for their mistakes, but in most cases the Mom gets stuck with all the work so I can certainly see why abortion happens in these cases. If we force women to have the babies we should force men to be fathers as well.
2 cents dropped.
It goes like this, no woman should be forced to have a baby that is going to threaten their own life or is proven to be severely handicapped nor should she be forced to have the baby of a rapist. However I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control and both parties involved have to take responsiblilty for their mistakes, but in most cases the Mom gets stuck with all the work so I can certainly see why abortion happens in these cases. If we force women to have the babies we should force men to be fathers as well.
2 cents dropped.
how would I know where your reply went Soc. If it was rude or abusive it probably got tossed.
So, you're talking about sterilization of people who aren't 'good' enough... oh yeah.. that's better. Sheesh.
What do you suggest that a woman with aids or addicted to heroin should be in the front line producing new deformed life? Allowing this to take place it would be the most irresponsible thing to do. I am not talking abortion is for every one, but cases like Aids, Heroin addiction, and others should be exempt from the context of fit incubation…….
First of all, even with AIDS, given modern medicine, it is possible to have a baby with a very low chance of passing it on to the child. very low.
Second of all... sterilizing a heroin addict, with no thought to the fact that she may get over her addiction in the future, is just plain wrong.
Third... you're not God. It's not your place to decide who does and doesn't get to reproduce. That's for THEM to decide. You're not 'pro-choice', you're elitist.
Sock.... Do you have a clue what human rights are? Yeah ... it sucks that kids born to these people pretty much have a snowball's chance in hell. It sucks that an AIDs infected hooker would risk passing on the disease by trading unprotected sex for a fix. It sucks that some people really shouldn't have kids. It sucks ... but there is jack you, me or anyone else can do about it because as a human, they have rights. If you feel so inclined to impose your will on another human being, what does that make you?
Just out of curiosity ... do you know the Serenity Prayer?
LW all that sucks so true, as well you are right on your belief that jack can be done about it…
Reality is, abortion is a dark subject for humanity, but today humanity is ill equipped with a system which will insure the safety of a future life ( a new born), as well looking at the rudimentary process which points at the mother.
Should she be in the radar as a habitual drug and alcohol abuser, she should be denied the right to bring in this life, a life which will be subjected to physical pain, as alcohol feudal syndrome kids have, they have bad migraine headache all their life’s and in many cases they are bipolar, and so on…
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5114a2.htm
By the way I do look at this Serenity prayer below and don’t have a reason to criticize it,
It speaks truth…Theologically……but looking at the anecdotal evidences, God doesn’t keep all his prayer requests from people fulfilled, always he forgets some, and unfortunately this world LW is like the sandy dessert of Saudi Arabia very warm in the day time and ice cold freezing at night.
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.
--Reinhold Niebuhr
You guys, Hitler doesn’t deserve to have his name mentioned, but since you brought him on that was a dark day for humanity when he was born……
Well since you just ignored the rest of my post, which explained where this confusion lies, it would be pretty redundant for me to post it again.... If you're not going to bother to read, then I'm not going to bother responding.
Did you know him, Socrates? I only respond to others mentioning him trying to make a point. I find it a little silly, and respond likewise. ;-)
At his time he was revered by a whole lot of Germans, including my parents. No one person is made up entirely of bad or evil characteristics. Naturally, he has been demonized by his enemies. It's been a long time, and a few others have since proved themselves no better than the worst he has been accused of.
May he and Stalin and Churchill and Roosevelt and Mussolini all rest peacefully!:smile:
Yes ... he sucked a lot of people in - but that's a topic for another thread.
I ignored it because it's more of the same nonsense. But I can address your crap if you like, if that is what it takes to get you to put down in concise language what your criteria for a living thing is.
No, it is human life. This is why I ask you what your criteria is, because an embryo is metabolically active, and it is a different organism than it's mother. So, what does potentially alive mean? Is that embryo alive, or is it not? There is no middle road here.
That's a nonsense analogy. A bridge only works as long as it is complete, that's obvious. Life doesn't depend on being fully developed. Is the moth pupae not actually a moth? It's a moth that is still developing. It's not a different species simply because it hasn't developed into it's adult form, and it's not nonliving because it's still developing. Perhaps you need to take more biology classes to understand that...
That is a garbage analogy.
So, what is it then. Is it alive, or is it not alive? It's not an extension of the mother, that's where DNA comes in, the same as a flea is not an extension of the cat.
Completely wrong. Life stages are stages of development in an organisms life cycle, not stages towards it. Human development goes from zygote to adult, covering all the areas between. And a human heart is different than a pig heart.
Not in so many words. I interpret a 100% complete/completed human--which you did say-- to be an adult. Maybe that's just that fuzzy biology getting in the way again. Hence the problems with your words. Every time you've explained why it's not alive, you leave this gaping hole of uncovered circumstances that encompass much of what human life actually is. I've been trying to show you that, but then you switch course, and say something completely new and unrelated to your first explanation.
Again, why is it not a living human? What makes it non-living, or non-human?
And none of that matters for classifying something as living or not, as I already explained. People are still alive when they are dependent on drugs or machines to keep their body functioning, so being independent in function is out the door. Unconscious people are still alive, so conscious obviously can't be used to determine life from non-living.
Your definitions and parameters suck, they don't meet any standard definition of what a living thing is, nor do they disqualify.
No it doesn't. You touched on it earlier. As far as the government of Canada is concerned, if you aren't on paper somewhere, you aren't covered by them. Citizens, immigrants, visas, all of it requires documentation. There is no documentation for the unborn, but that doesn't mean they aren't alive.
That's something they would have to change to really give the unborn rights, which as I already explained, this legislation doesn't come close to fulfilling.
A dead body is still a human body. An unborn is still a human body. The morphology doesn't change the fact that it is a body, and that it is human. The metabolically active body is alive. The inert corpse is not. How silly...
If it isn't human, what is it? It's not a freaking chimpanzee.
In biological terms, it's not dead tissue. It's called viable. You can keep living tissue viable while it's removed from the body, by slowing cellular decay and solute concentrations. It's not brought back to life, it's prevented from becoming dead tissue. Dead tissue cannot be brought back to life, because it no longer has the equipment needed. The cell membranes have deteriorated, which destroys the ability to control what products enter and leave the cells. The organelles of the cell have deteriorated because the nutrients needed to sustain them were used up. In short, preventing the cells from lysing en masse keeps the tissue viable. Once the cells lyse, they're dead.
Clinically dead, not dead. Clinical death is when the heart stops, and blood flow and breathing have stopped. The reason it isn't called death anymore is that they can still be resuscitated. Brain death is a whole different ball of wax, but follows shortly after clinical death if blood flow can't be restored.
In any event, the fetus has both brain activity and blood flow. It has a heart beat after just four weeks in the womb, at which time the brain is also developing, certainly not 'dead'.
But that's not correct. Individual organs can fail, and you'll still be alive.
Argue consciousness with someone else. That's not needed to be alive, and besides that, the embryo has all of those key organs before birth.
Do the mother and fetus have the same genetics? NO. They are separate living things. The placenta isn't a permanent organ....
I didn't expect anything from you, other than for you to read and comprehend at an adult level.
No, you haven't. You haven't demonstrated that it isn't a human. It is. You haven't demonstrated it isn't a living thing. It is. Non-living things don't have beating hearts, with metabolically active cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems. You've tried using some twisted logic to say it isn't a human, and that it isn't alive, but none of them are useful because they disqualify some who everyone would call living humans. Unless you can come up with some revolutionary definition for human, and for classifying a living thing, you won't be able to claim that it isn't human, or that it isn't alive.
Repeating yourself doesn't make what you repeat correct. You're not at all in sync with biological conventions, which is what we have for classifying living things. So, I'm going to continue to challenge your nonsense as long as you repeat it.
Because I haven't been discussing that, but can if you like. I kind of said something above to this effect already, but in the eyes of the government, it's not a person. Which doesn't make it 'non-living'. Women and different races at one time weren't considered "people" under the law, because that's the way the laws were written. Giving the unborn rights requires changing laws, and would require giving them equal rights to the mother, which I have never agreed with.
The law doesn't have to be in sync with science. Maybe that makes me a monster for thinking it's a living human that doesn't deserve the rights of the mother. I can deal with that. That's not to say it's something I would choose, or my girlfriend for that matter, she feels the same way I do about this. That is, a woman's right to choose is paramount.The right to choose belongs to the mother. It's to me an unfortunate decision, but it's not my choice to make for anyone, it's the choice of the mother, in exactly the same way as the next of kin can choose to pull the plug on their husband, child, etc.
It is together. It doesn't matter, no matter how often you ask that question. If you use that question on a fetus, it has to apply to other living humans too, no? Because if a living human has individual consciousness, what is a person who lives ina coma? Babies in the womb show more response than the coma victim, who is a living human.
Get you sh!t together.
I'm discussing what makes something living or not. Are you? Is individual consciousness applicable to all things? Nope. Not a criteria for living bacteria, plants, etc. It's a characteristic, but not a necessity. Independent bodilly function, do you consider conjoined twins to be one person now? There's two individual consciouses at work there, but they aren't independently functioning, so what does that do for your classification of a living thing?
Independent bodilly function, and individual consciousness. Read above for the problems with that.
Umm, no we couldn't. Everything that lives passes on DNA. It is a component of all living things. We classify a living thing according to conventions, not abstract delusional crap. All living things:1) resond independently to stimuli, 2) require energy to sustain themselves, 3) excrete waste, 4) pass on their genes to the next generation, and 5) die. Those are the 5 fundamental characteristics of living things. It's straightforward biology. A rock doesn't respond independently to environemntal stimulus. A star doesn't pass on genetic material.
Maybe you forgot, but that quote you responded to was in response to you saying it[the fetus] was an extension of the mother. I said the DNA proves it isn't an extension, it's a different individual. All living things do have DNA. That it can still be found in a dead creature is irrelevant, it obviously once lived.
You responded to Curio's question of hen life begins. It begins when there is a metabolism, that metabolism starts independently of the mother's. Even the clinically dead you mentioned earlier, which can still be brought back to life, are metabolically active.
No, I'm still arguing your contention that a human life begins at birth. Unless you've changed your position in the past few pages, I'm still arguing that you're wrong.
It's not at all hard to understand, and makes logical sense as science does. What you're saying doesn't make logical sense.
Your answer to Curio explicitly stated you think life begins at birth. Has that changed?
That very well could be. Appologies for thinking that you still think human life begins at birth.I think you're also Option A: Ignorant on what the hell I'm trying to explain.... perhaps now you might understand where I am coming from..... sorry for simplifying my wording, I just figured I would try and avoid making long posts.
Ok Tonnington, lets say we go with your definition of human life:
If its alive, then then the mother shouldn't have to keep it inside of her. Take it out and it can be alive on its own.
You can't be forced to donate blood or any other tissue, even to your own child to save its life.
So its not abortion, its not supplying body tissue to another living being. There ya go.
If its alive, then then the mother shouldn't have to keep it inside of her. Take it out and it can be alive on its own.
You can't be forced to donate blood or any other tissue, even to your own child to save its life.
So its not abortion, its not supplying body tissue to another living being. There ya go.
I'm not defining human life. I'm using a definition of a living thing. It's pretty standard that all living things require nutrients, produce waste, pass on genes, respond to stimuli and die. You'll find that in any zoology, botony, microbiology or biochemistry text books. That makes the fetus a living thing, and of course it is not an extension of the mother. That's simple genetics.
I'm kind of shocked that anyone would have problems with that.
ETA: Further, that in the life cycle of all humans, we require the womb to survive doesn't disqualify a fetus as a living thing. Are the corals non-living because they require symbiotic bacteria to feed them?
I'm kind of shocked that anyone would have problems with that.
ETA: Further, that in the life cycle of all humans, we require the womb to survive doesn't disqualify a fetus as a living thing. Are the corals non-living because they require symbiotic bacteria to feed them?
Last edited:
Dear Karrie, I never once insinuated that I was God…………..
A person concerned about managing human mental pain is not by far an Elitist my dear; he is a person of compassion, a person who understands the pain of abandonment….
If you are not able to differentiate between pain of abandonment or birth defects and well being, then your cause is self serving if you exclude qualified cases in need of abortion. I am not God, neither are you; we should let qualified cases do their thing with out interference in other peoples business…….
It is a woman’s choice, only if the woman is able to decide in making the correct choice good for her self…………if a woman has a dad history of physical drug abuse she has no business bringing in this world a human life with bad medical odds stacked sky high against them and then dump a problem on societies door step…………….